Introduction
It is important to note that since the implementation of standardized test scores in the current education system, many questions and criticisms have been raised concerning the grading effectiveness of schools. The primary concern is related to the overall comprehensiveness of the scoring methods in accounting for a range of vital factors affecting performance, which is why such a categorization might not be objective. Thus, schools are not graded by their standardized test scores because they do not account for non-cognitive teacher effects and facilitate segregation and inequities in the educational system.
Arguments Against Standardized Test Scores
Segregation
Firstly, a significant objection to the use of standardized test scores can be raised when it comes to their adverse effects. It is stated that “high-stakes standardized testing has played a negative role in the segregation of children by race and class in schools” (Knoester and Au 1). In other words, such grading of schools is likely to facilitate division based on race and social class.
Therefore, test scores used for school grading are somewhat incompatible with the existing education system, which has elements of systemic racism and segregation inherited from decades of discriminatory policies. It is suggested that “the intrinsic features of high-stakes testing, combined with current systems of school choice, function as mechanisms used for racial coding that facilitate segregation and compound inequalities found in schools” (Knoester and Au 1).
Minority communities were historically segregated, causing a resource disadvantage. The latter, coupled with current policies on how schools are funded and developed as part of nearby communities, means that standardized test scores further compound these gaps. Thus, there should not be sole reliance on such school grading methods, where the historical disadvantages are discounted.
Limited Assessment
Secondly, standardized test scores measure only a limited range of skills and abilities, so the framework does not represent school performance regarding non-cognitive teacher effects. Educating students is not solely concerned with providing knowledge but with proper behaviors and non-cognitive capabilities. Examples include social skills, emotional intelligence, resilience, diligence, and discipline.
Research states that “these behaviors include absences, suspensions, course grades, and grade repetition in ninth grade. Teacher effects on test scores and those on behaviors are weakly correlated” (Jackson, p. 2072). In other words, teachers are tasked with objectives focused on developing student competencies and outcomes outside of what standardized test scores are capable of measuring.
Using these instruments in grade schools means that only a single developmental dimension is assessed and analyzed as a benchmark, denying learners comprehensive growth. Thus, “relative to using only test score measures, using effects on both test score and non-cognitive measures more than doubles the variance of predictable teacher impacts on longer-run outcomes” (Jackson, p. 2072). It is critical to design comprehensive measurement tools, including test scores, alongside other methods.
Conclusion
In summary, schools should not be evaluated based on standardized test scores because these assessments overlook the non-cognitive contributions of teachers and can reinforce segregation and inequities within the education system. Using test scores to grade schools is somewhat misaligned with the current system, which still reflects systemic racism and segregation rooted in decades of unjust policies. Standardized tests assess only a narrow set of skills, meaning they fail to capture the full scope of school performance, particularly the impact of non-cognitive teacher effects.
Works Cited
Jackson, Kirabo C. “What Do Test Scores Miss? The Importance of Teacher Effects on Non–Test Score Outcomes.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 126, no. 5, 2018, pp. 2072-2107.
Knoester, Matthew, and Wayne Au. “Standardized Testing and School Segregation: Like Tinder for Fire?” Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 20, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1-14.